Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Risk Management

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Risk Management and Governance

Part of the book series: Risk, Governance and Society ((RISKGOSO,volume 16))

Abstract

Risk management starts with a review of all relevant information, particularly from combined risk appraisal, consisting of both risk assessment and concern assessment where the latter is based on risk perception studies, economic impact assessments and the scientific characterization of social responses to the risk source. This information, together with the judgements made in the phase of risk characterization and evaluation, form the input material upon which risk management options are being assessed, evaluated and selected.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Arrow, K. J. (1951). Social choice and individual values (2nd ed.). New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aven, T. (2003). Foundations of risk analysis: A knowledge and decision-oriented perspective. Chichester: Wiley.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Aven, T. (2006). On the precautionary principle in the context of different perspectives on risk. Risk Management: An International Journal, 8, 192–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aven, T., & Flage, R. (2009). Use of decision criteria based on expected values to support decision-making in a production assurance and safety setting. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 94, 1491–1498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aven, T., & Kørte, J. (2003). On the use of cost/benefit analyses and expected utility theory to support decision-making. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 79, 289–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aven, T., & Renn, O. (2009b). The role of quantitative risk assessments for characterizing risk and uncertainty and delineating appropriate risk management options, with special emphasis on terrorism risk. Risk Analysis, 29, 587–600.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aven, T., & Vinnem, J. E. (2005). On the use of risk acceptance criteria in the offshore oil and gas industry. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 90, 15–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aven, T., & Vinnem, J. E. (2007). Risk management, with applications from the offshore petroleum industry. Heidelberg: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baram, M. (1980). Cost-benefit analysis: An inadequate basis for health, safety, and environmental regulatory decision making. Ecology Law Quarterly, 8, 473–531.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bedford, T., & Cooke, R. (1999). A new generic model for applying MAUT. European Journal of Operational Research, 118, 589–604.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Behn, R. D., & Vaupel, J. V. (1982). Quick analysis for busy decision makers. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, D. E., Raiffa, H., & Tversky, A. (1995). Descriptive, normative and prescriptive interactions in decision making. In D. E. Bell, H. Raiffa, & A. Tversky (Eds.), Decision making: descriptive, normative and prescriptive interactions (3rd ed., pp. 9–32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coglianese, C., & Lazer, D. (2003). Management-based regulation: Prescribing private management to achieve public goals. Law and Society, 37, 691–730.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dawes, R. M. (2001b). Rational choice in an uncertain world. Original published by Harcourt Brace Jovanovich (2nd ed.). San Diego: Sage Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • EAI. (2006). Risk and uncertainty in cost benefit analysis: A toolbox paper for the Environmental Assessment Institute. Retrieved December 27, 2009, from http://www.imv.dk/Default.aspx?ID=323

  • Edwards, W. (1954). The theory of decision making. Psychological Bulletin, 51, 380–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Einhorn, H. J., & Hogarth, R. M. (1981). Behavioral decision theory: Processes of judgment and choice. Annual Review of Psychology, 32, 53–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischhoff, B., Lichtenstein, S., Slovic, P., Derby, S., & Keeney, R. (1981). Acceptable risk. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., & Lichtenstein, S. (1985). Weighing the risks. In R. W. Kates, C. Hohenemser, & J. X. Kasperson (Eds.), Perilous progress: Managing the hazards of technology (pp. 265–283). Boulder: Westview.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn, P. (1981). Subjective expected utility: A review of normative theories. Theory and Decision, 13, 139–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foster, H. (2002). The role of experts in risk-based decision making. London: HSE Risk Assessment Policy Unit, WEB Manuscript, Trustnet-Paper.

    Google Scholar 

  • French, S., & Rios Insua, D. (2000). Statistical decision theory. London: Edward Arnold.

    Google Scholar 

  • French, S., Bedford, T., & Atherton, E. (2005). Supporting ALARP decision-making by cost benefit analysis and multi-attribute utility theory. Journal of Risk Research, 8, 207–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Funtowicz, S. O., & Ravetz, J. R. (1992). Three types of risk assessment and the emergence of post-normal science. In S. Krimsky & D. Golding (Eds.), Social theories of risk (pp. 251–273). Westport: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Funtowicz, S. O., & Ravetz, J. R. (1993). Science for the post-normal age. Futures, 25(7), 739–755.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, J. D., & Weiner, J. B. (Eds.). (1995). Risk versus risk: Tradeoffs in protecting health and the environment. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregory, R. S., McDaniels, T., & Fields, D. (2001). Decision aiding, not dispute resolution: A new perspective for environmental negotiation. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 20(3), 415–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hammond, J., Keeney, R., & Raiffa, H. (1999). Smart choices: A practical guide to making better decisions. Cambridge: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hampel, J., & Renn, O. (Eds.). (2000). Gentechnik in der Öffentlichkeit: Wahrnehmung und Bewertung einer umstrittenen Technologie (2nd ed.). Frankfurt/Main: Campus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanley, N., & Spash, C. L. (1993). Cost-benefit analysis and the environment. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartwick, J., & Olewiler, N. (1998). The economics of natural resource use (2nd ed.). New York: Addison Wesley Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heap, S. H., Hollis, M., Lyons, B., Sugden, R., & Weale, A. (1992). The theory of choice: A practical guide. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofstede, G. (2003). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Newbury Park: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howard, R. A. (1966). Decision analysis: Applied decision theory. In D. B. Hertz & J. Melese (Eds.), Proceedings of the fourth international conference on operational research. New York: Wiley Interscience. Reprinted in Howard and Matheson, 1989, pp. 581–589.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howard, R. A. (1968). The foundations of decision analysis. IEEE Transactions on Systems Science and Cybernetics SSC, 4(3), 211–219. Reprinted in Howard and Matheson, 1989, pp. 97–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howard, R. A., Matheson, J. E., and North, D. W. (1972). The decision to seed hurricanes. Science, 176, 1191–1202. Retrieved December 27, 2009, from http://www.northworks.net/hurricanes.pdf

  • HSE. (2001). Reducing risk protecting people. London: Health and Safety Executive.

    Google Scholar 

  • HSE. (2006). Offshore installations (Safety Case) regulations 2005. Regulation 12 demonstrating compliance with the relevant statutory provisions. Offshore Information Sheet No. 2/2006, Health and Safety Executive, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • IRGC. (2005). Risk governance: Towards an integrative approach. White Paper No. 1, O. Renn with an Annex by P. Graham. Geneva: International Risk Governance Council (IRGC).

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaeger, C. C., Renn, O., Rosa, E. A., & Webler, T. (2001). Risk uncertainty and rational action. London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jungermann, H. (1986). The two camps of rationality. In H. R. Arkes & K. R. Hammond (Eds.), Judgment and decision making: An interdisciplinary reader (pp. 465–471). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (1982). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keeney, R. L. (1988). Structuring objectives for problems of public interest. Operations Research, 36, 396–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keeney, R. L. (1992). Value focused thinking: A path to creative decision making. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keeney, R. L., & Raiffa, H. (1993). Decisions with multiple objectives: Preferences and value tradeoffs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keeney, R. L., Renn, O., von Winterfeldt, D., & Kotte, U. (1984). Die Wertbaumanalyse, Entscheidungshilfe für die Politik. Munich: HTV Edition Technik und Sozialer Wandel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keeney, R. L., Renn, O., & von Winterfeldt, D. (1987). Structuring west Germany’s energy objectives. Energy Policy, 15(4), 352–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelman, S. (1981). Cost-benefit analysis: An ethical critique. Regulation, 5(1), 33–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, G. (1997). Developing expertise in decision making. Thinking and Reasoning, 3(4), 337–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klinke, A., & Renn, O. (2002). A new approach to risk evaluation and management: Risk-based, precaution-based and discourse-based management. Risk Analysis, 22(6), 1071–1994.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koenig, A., & Jasanoff, S. (2001). A comparison of institutional changes to improve the credibility of expert advice for regulatory decision making in the US and EU. A study for the European Commission. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levy, H., & Sarnat, M. (1990). Capital investment and financial decisions (4th ed.). New York: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindley, D. V. (1985). Making decisions. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Löfstedt, R. E. (2003). The precautionary principle: Risk, regulation and politics. Trans IChemE B, 81, 36–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merkhofer, M. W. (1987). Quantifying judgmental uncertainty: Methodology, experiences, and insights. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 17(5), 741–752.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, M. G. (1990). Choosing and managing technology-induced risks. In T. S. Glickman & M. Gough (Eds.), Readings in risk (pp. 5–15). Washington, DC, USA: Resources for the Future.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, M. G., & Henrion, M. (1990). Uncertainty: a guide to dealing with uncertainty in quantitative risk and policy analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Nas, T. F. (1996). Cost-benefit analysis. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. (1944). Theory of games and economic behaviour. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • North, D. W. (1968). A tutorial introduction to decision theory. IEEE Transactions on Systems Science and Cybernetics, SSC-4(3), 200–210. Reprinted in Howard and Matheson, 1989, pp. 117–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • North, D. W., & Merkhofer, M. W. (1976). A methodology for analyzing emission control strategies. Computers and Operations Research, 3, 185–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patil, S. R., & Frey, H. C. (2004). Comparison of sensitivity analysis methods based upon applications to a food safety risk model. Risk Analysis, 23(3), 573–585.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, L. D. (1979). Introduction to decision analysis. London: London School of Economics and Political Science. Tutorial Paper 79-1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinkau, K., & Renn, O. (1998). Environmental standards: Scientific foundations and rational procedures of regulation with emphasis on radiological risk management. Dordrecht and Boston: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raiffa, H. (1968). Decision analysis: Introductory lectures on choices under uncertainty. Reading: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Renn, O. (1986). Decision analytic tools for resolving uncertainty in the energy debate. Nuclear Engineering and Design, 93(2–3), 167–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Renn, O., Kastenholz, H., & Leiss, W. (2002). Guidance document on risk communication for chemical risk management (Series on Risk Management: Environment, Health and Safety Publications, Vol. 16). Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowe, G., & Frewer, L. J. (2000). Public participation methods: A framework for evaluation. Science, Technology and Human Values, 225(1), 3–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandin, P. (1999). Dimensions of the precautionary principle. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 5, 889–907.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Savage, L. (1972). The foundations of statistics. New York: Dover.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sjöberg, L. (2000). Perceived risk and tampering with nature. Journal of Risk Research, 3, 353–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skinner, D. C. (1999). Introduction to decision analysis (2nd ed.). New York: Probabilistic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., & Lichtenstein, S. (1977). Behavioral decision theory. Annual Review of Psychology, 28, 13–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, V. K. (1986). A conceptual overview of the foundations of benefit-cost analysis. In J. D. Bentkover, V. T. Covello, & J. Mumpower (Eds.), Benefits assessment: The state of the art (pp. 13–34). Dordrecht: Reidel.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Stirling, A. (2008). ‘Opening up’ and ‘closing down’: Power, participation, and pluralism in the social appraisal of technology. Science, Technology and Human Values, 33(2), 262–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Asselt, M. B. A. (2000). Perspectives on uncertainty and risk. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Asselt, M. B. A. (2005). The complex significance of uncertainty in a risk era: Logics, manners and strategies in use. International Journal for Risk Assessment and Management, 5(2–4), 125–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Von Winterfeldt, D. (1987). Value tree analysis: An introduction and an application to offshore oil drilling. In P. R. Kleindorfer & H. C. Kunreuther (Eds.), Insuring and managing hazardous risks: From Seveso to Bhopal and Beyond (pp. 349–385). Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Von Winterfeldt, D., & Edwards, W. (1984). Patterns of conflict about risk debates. Risk Analysis, 4, 55–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Von Winterfeldt, D., & Edwards, W. (1986). Decision analysis and behavioral research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watson, S. R., & Buede, D. M. (1987). Decision synthesis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wicke, L. (1982). Umweltökonomie. Eine praxisorientierte Einführung. Assisted by Wilfried Franke. Munich: Vahlen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiener, J. B. (1998). Managing the iatrogenic risks of risk management. Risk: Health Safety and Environment, 9, 39–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yates, F. (1990). Judgment and decision making. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Stavanger, 4036, Stavanger, Norway

    Prof. Terje Aven

  2. Institute of Social Sciences V and Environment, University of Stuttgart, Seidenstraße 36, 70174, Stuttgart, Germany

    Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Ortwin Renn

Authors
  1. Prof. Terje Aven
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Ortwin Renn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Terje Aven .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2010 Springer Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Aven, T., Renn, O. (2010). Risk Management. In: Risk Management and Governance. Risk, Governance and Society, vol 16. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-13926-0_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-13926-0_8

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-13925-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-13926-0

  • eBook Packages: Business and EconomicsEconomics and Finance (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation